It's much simpler than that. Feminist theory constructed intersectionality. Straight white men are the devils, disabled, black, trans women are the angels. Men have been villainized for decades, and it's somewhat ingrained now. But (white) women are less accustomed to this, and the racial insanity that escalated in 2020 exacerbated this. Ask yourself who is reading "White Fragility" and "How to Be an Antiracist"? Women are more likely to be drawn to higher intersectional ground. Helena Kerschner and others talk about how they learned online that being white was like being evil, they had no right to speak, their opinions didn't matter, but they became celebrated once they declared themselves to be "non-binary" and then "trans." The buzz of intersectional acceptance is intoxicating. Stephen A. Richards was trying to escape the "cis white oppressor" status - many boys are seeking to climb the intersectional ladder too, and escape the blight of being male. He literally removed his genitals to avoid becoming the evil white male r*pist he was expected to grown into by default. So the problem isn't that these girls are girls, it's that they're white. For boys, it's that they're male, and white. These girls aren't transing to be men, they're transing to be trans, because that identity is celebrated - "man" is not; there's no ground to be gained there. That's also why the race-faking thing comes into it, but it's intersectionally frowned upon to be found out. You're not allowed to fake being POC, so unless you're willing to take the risk and the fallout that comes from it, for most girls that kind of leaves only sexuality, neurodiversity and "gender identity." Every girl in college claims to be "bi" for cred, but few have or do have romantic entanglements with another woman. Neurodiversity is still a bit of a thing out there, but we're mostly beyond the bulk of the "headmates," and tics and other performative trends in this area. Which leaves the ripe ground of "gender identity" with an infinite array of identities, and no criteria qualify. Your romantic history can demonstrate you're not bi or lesbian, you have to put on a particular performance for most mental health issues, which can be identified as fake with sufficient knowledge. But gender identities are whatever you claim them to be. You can even invent a new one and it's immediately regarded as "valid" by default. It's no wonder then that white girls are drawn to this to obtain intersectional victimhood and oppression points. They're not pursuing maleness or manhood because this doesn't let you step up the intersectional ladder. But points you get for "trans" far exceed those deducted for "man." You've voluntarily accepted victimhood as a martyr. If you're looking for an explanation, you need look no further than intersectional feminism. Helena is a really good speaker on this topic, as she went through it herself. Look up Helena's chats with Ben Shapiro, or with Aaron Kimberly and Aaron Terrell on the Transparency podcast, or her presentation for Genspect, titled something like "Trans and Tumblr."
Unlike racial identities, a transgender identity is one that people are actively encouraged and recruited to adopt by existing members. And it’s definitely recruitment - spend a few days on Tumblr and you’ll see what I mean. They first make it look really cool and desirable and a way to fit in, then they bully you to the point of not wanting to be yourself anymore, by telling you that you’re privileged, you’re a bad person because you’re not a minority, you aren’t even allowed to speak. Then, once they’ve provided the incentive, they use all kinds of double talk and vague language to make you question whether you could be. Then, if you decide you are, the love bombing begins. But then there are the threats, to make sure you never back out - anyone who changes their minds was just faking it for attention, no one outside this community will ever accept you, etc.
It’s pretty clear that there are certain people who understand that increasing the numbers helps their cause of erasing any boundaries between males and females and giving them full legal and physical access to women’s spaces. They are likely joined by people with a financial stake in the medical transition industry, people with a variety of motives such as decreasing the reproductive rate of humans for environmental reasons, and people trying to bring about the economic downfall of western nations.
These kids are pawns of people who don’t care one bit about their wellbeing.
About 25 years ago IIRC there was survey that found 1 in 3 white Alabamians claimed to have a Native American ancestor. Of course the real number is likley 3 percent instead of 30 percent. What is striking to me, having heard this claim anecdotally dozen of times, is that the ancestor is ALWAYS a "Cherokee princess." Which doesn't exist, of course, but the point is that the supposed ancestor is never a man, and the linkage always ennobles them.
I remember when Kendi accidentally blew up his ideology with the Tweet "More than a third of White students lied about their race on college applications, and about half of these applicants lied about being Native American. More than three-fourths of these students who lied about their race were accepted."
You answered your primary question yourself. Why do so many white women seek to belong to circles where they don't "belong"? Because if they don't, they are dismissed as nothing but "white", "heterosexual", "bland" and "boring". In other words, we are useless. Look at how you depict your own family history. You grew up in the Midwest, you attended Catholic school, you were raised by people who worked on cattle farms and owned stores, your grandfather served in WWII, but didn't see action. Yawn. Boring. Nothing at all interesting there. But the "cultural" side of the family, the side with mixed heritage that has lineage more difficult to trace? They were more interesting -- they would gather and discuss and challenge and yell at each other and call out others' bullshit. They were lively, they were worthwhile, they were people you are proud of. Come on! You are demonstrating EXACTLY why young white women are desperately seeking to classify themselves as ANYTHING else! Because in the intersectional society in which we now live, people are taught that white is bad...and anyone who is at all "European" (who can be considered "white") is bland and boring and not worth learning about. Come on!!!! This is SO intellectually dishonest. People who lived and worked and died in the Midwest have interesting stories. So do people who lived and worked and died in European countries, regardless of how much melanin was in their skin. Young women are grasping for purpose and they are looking for it in all the wrong places. Women should look to true stories of strength from their own heritage -- stories of family members in the past who lived, worked and overcame amazing challenges. Not all white people are descended from royalty, slave-owners, land owners or oppressors. The lack of appreciation for real people of the past is stunning. The result? People make up identities now because they aren't connected to their lineage from the past.
We have one of those in Canada; his name is Thomas King. He saw the reckoning coming and wisely, slowly, backed away from his claims of indigeneity.
Did he originally claim to be Cherokee to commit fraud? I highly doubt it. It was a subject matter that he was drawn to, and mastered. He's also a great storyteller and went on to encapsulate Canada's complicated history with our Natives population - delivering the 2003 Massey Lecture and forming the foundation for many Canadians' empathy with this topic. Did he *need* to be indigenous to share his knowledge with us? Today, the 'correct' answer is supposed to be Yes. But if we didn't have Thomas King, you can't assume a different "real indian" would have shown up, or that Canadians would have responded in the same way.
It's much easier for females to slip into a non-binary role because no real sex is required.
And females, despite orthodox 'feminist dogma', are NOT driven by a powerful and inescapably obvious sex drive which will lead the way for even the most oblivious individual.
It's much simpler than that. Feminist theory constructed intersectionality. Straight white men are the devils, disabled, black, trans women are the angels. Men have been villainized for decades, and it's somewhat ingrained now. But (white) women are less accustomed to this, and the racial insanity that escalated in 2020 exacerbated this. Ask yourself who is reading "White Fragility" and "How to Be an Antiracist"? Women are more likely to be drawn to higher intersectional ground. Helena Kerschner and others talk about how they learned online that being white was like being evil, they had no right to speak, their opinions didn't matter, but they became celebrated once they declared themselves to be "non-binary" and then "trans." The buzz of intersectional acceptance is intoxicating. Stephen A. Richards was trying to escape the "cis white oppressor" status - many boys are seeking to climb the intersectional ladder too, and escape the blight of being male. He literally removed his genitals to avoid becoming the evil white male r*pist he was expected to grown into by default. So the problem isn't that these girls are girls, it's that they're white. For boys, it's that they're male, and white. These girls aren't transing to be men, they're transing to be trans, because that identity is celebrated - "man" is not; there's no ground to be gained there. That's also why the race-faking thing comes into it, but it's intersectionally frowned upon to be found out. You're not allowed to fake being POC, so unless you're willing to take the risk and the fallout that comes from it, for most girls that kind of leaves only sexuality, neurodiversity and "gender identity." Every girl in college claims to be "bi" for cred, but few have or do have romantic entanglements with another woman. Neurodiversity is still a bit of a thing out there, but we're mostly beyond the bulk of the "headmates," and tics and other performative trends in this area. Which leaves the ripe ground of "gender identity" with an infinite array of identities, and no criteria qualify. Your romantic history can demonstrate you're not bi or lesbian, you have to put on a particular performance for most mental health issues, which can be identified as fake with sufficient knowledge. But gender identities are whatever you claim them to be. You can even invent a new one and it's immediately regarded as "valid" by default. It's no wonder then that white girls are drawn to this to obtain intersectional victimhood and oppression points. They're not pursuing maleness or manhood because this doesn't let you step up the intersectional ladder. But points you get for "trans" far exceed those deducted for "man." You've voluntarily accepted victimhood as a martyr. If you're looking for an explanation, you need look no further than intersectional feminism. Helena is a really good speaker on this topic, as she went through it herself. Look up Helena's chats with Ben Shapiro, or with Aaron Kimberly and Aaron Terrell on the Transparency podcast, or her presentation for Genspect, titled something like "Trans and Tumblr."
Unlike racial identities, a transgender identity is one that people are actively encouraged and recruited to adopt by existing members. And it’s definitely recruitment - spend a few days on Tumblr and you’ll see what I mean. They first make it look really cool and desirable and a way to fit in, then they bully you to the point of not wanting to be yourself anymore, by telling you that you’re privileged, you’re a bad person because you’re not a minority, you aren’t even allowed to speak. Then, once they’ve provided the incentive, they use all kinds of double talk and vague language to make you question whether you could be. Then, if you decide you are, the love bombing begins. But then there are the threats, to make sure you never back out - anyone who changes their minds was just faking it for attention, no one outside this community will ever accept you, etc.
It’s pretty clear that there are certain people who understand that increasing the numbers helps their cause of erasing any boundaries between males and females and giving them full legal and physical access to women’s spaces. They are likely joined by people with a financial stake in the medical transition industry, people with a variety of motives such as decreasing the reproductive rate of humans for environmental reasons, and people trying to bring about the economic downfall of western nations.
These kids are pawns of people who don’t care one bit about their wellbeing.
About 25 years ago IIRC there was survey that found 1 in 3 white Alabamians claimed to have a Native American ancestor. Of course the real number is likley 3 percent instead of 30 percent. What is striking to me, having heard this claim anecdotally dozen of times, is that the ancestor is ALWAYS a "Cherokee princess." Which doesn't exist, of course, but the point is that the supposed ancestor is never a man, and the linkage always ennobles them.
I remember when Kendi accidentally blew up his ideology with the Tweet "More than a third of White students lied about their race on college applications, and about half of these applicants lied about being Native American. More than three-fourths of these students who lied about their race were accepted."
You answered your primary question yourself. Why do so many white women seek to belong to circles where they don't "belong"? Because if they don't, they are dismissed as nothing but "white", "heterosexual", "bland" and "boring". In other words, we are useless. Look at how you depict your own family history. You grew up in the Midwest, you attended Catholic school, you were raised by people who worked on cattle farms and owned stores, your grandfather served in WWII, but didn't see action. Yawn. Boring. Nothing at all interesting there. But the "cultural" side of the family, the side with mixed heritage that has lineage more difficult to trace? They were more interesting -- they would gather and discuss and challenge and yell at each other and call out others' bullshit. They were lively, they were worthwhile, they were people you are proud of. Come on! You are demonstrating EXACTLY why young white women are desperately seeking to classify themselves as ANYTHING else! Because in the intersectional society in which we now live, people are taught that white is bad...and anyone who is at all "European" (who can be considered "white") is bland and boring and not worth learning about. Come on!!!! This is SO intellectually dishonest. People who lived and worked and died in the Midwest have interesting stories. So do people who lived and worked and died in European countries, regardless of how much melanin was in their skin. Young women are grasping for purpose and they are looking for it in all the wrong places. Women should look to true stories of strength from their own heritage -- stories of family members in the past who lived, worked and overcame amazing challenges. Not all white people are descended from royalty, slave-owners, land owners or oppressors. The lack of appreciation for real people of the past is stunning. The result? People make up identities now because they aren't connected to their lineage from the past.
Some men do this, for the same reason. But i think there is also a taboo against being feminine which counteracts some of it. https://sybmantics.substack.com/p/purification-rites?s=r
". I was just a lonely, wounded child. All I really wanted was to be loved."
Re: Andrea Smirh
We have one of those in Canada; his name is Thomas King. He saw the reckoning coming and wisely, slowly, backed away from his claims of indigeneity.
Did he originally claim to be Cherokee to commit fraud? I highly doubt it. It was a subject matter that he was drawn to, and mastered. He's also a great storyteller and went on to encapsulate Canada's complicated history with our Natives population - delivering the 2003 Massey Lecture and forming the foundation for many Canadians' empathy with this topic. Did he *need* to be indigenous to share his knowledge with us? Today, the 'correct' answer is supposed to be Yes. But if we didn't have Thomas King, you can't assume a different "real indian" would have shown up, or that Canadians would have responded in the same way.
It's much easier for females to slip into a non-binary role because no real sex is required.
And females, despite orthodox 'feminist dogma', are NOT driven by a powerful and inescapably obvious sex drive which will lead the way for even the most oblivious individual.